Germany to get tough?

[cee-dee]

So, enough's enough eh? Germany has decided to root out "economic migrants" from "assylum seekers"?

When I mentioned them as two factions on another thread some seemed to think that I was wrong to divide the issue and that all the "refugees" were the same?

Now it seems that Germany has decided to remove those who have no prospect of assylum:-

Germany's governing coalition is arguing over whether to set up "transit zones" on the country's border to quickly weed out migrants who have no realistic chance of winning asylum.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative bloc is pushing the idea. It would entail extending to Germany's land borders a system that already exists at its airports, where migrants who arrive from countries considered safe or without papers can be held while asylum applications are processed quickly.

[cee-dee]

The "problem" in modern times is being made easier for the migrants by ease of communication and transport coupled with the lack of violence in the countries through which they're travelling plus open borders.

Whilst you can't help feeling sorry for their situation, it hardly seems fair that they see a way of life which, to them, appears much easier than where they originate so decide they want a slice of the action too so go all out to get there and claim all they can. It can't go on for ever, there has to be a limit if not an end to it.

All too often, the originating countries seem to be places where they breed like rabbits and live in squalour, often making no attempt to make simple improvements to their infrastructure.

They should stay in their own country and effect changes there before taking their troubles to other countries where they make little effort to learn the language or adopt the way of life and customs.

Some immigrants to this country have learned a full vocabulary with excellent language skills, adopting along the way a "British way of life". Sadly, there are many who live in a virtual ghetto and watching and listening, you'd think you were in some third world country, not Britain. What did they come here for?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The "problem" in modern times is being made easier for the migrants by ease of communication and transport coupled with the lack of violence in the countries through which they're travelling plus open borders.

Whilst you can't help feeling sorry for their situation, it hardly seems fair that they see a way of life which, to them, appears much easier than where they originate so decide they want a slice of the action too so go all out to get there and claim all they can. It can't go on for ever, there has to be a limit if not an end to it.

All too often, the originating countries seem to be places where they breed like rabbits and live in squalour, often making no attempt to make simple improvements to their infrastructure.

They should stay in their own country and effect changes there before taking their troubles to other countries where they make little effort to learn the language or adopt the way of life and customs.

Some immigrants to this country have learned a full vocabulary with excellent language skills, adopting along the way a "British way of life". Sadly, there are many who live in a virtual ghetto and watching and listening, you'd think you were in some third world country, not Britain. What did they come here for?

---

What's unfair about that?

What is unfair is that some of us are lucky enough to be born in an area that has an established infrastructure and others aren't.

People move to parts of the world where there is employment - always have, always will.

[fallen-archie]

According to reports Germany is to give Turkey £3billion to strengthen its borders which are among the most difficult to manage. In Syria the forces of Assad are moving forward with significant support from the Russians who claim that up to 8000 fighters from the former Soviet Union have joined Isis so they want to prevent them from taking their expertise back to start trouble closer to home. 

Germany has always had close links with Turkey and Turks make up one of the largest ethnic groups, and of course there are other histiric links which I won't go into.

The question is where will it all end, how will it impact on us and the rest of the world?

Hopefully sufficiently on topic.

[astrologica]

Turkey wants to join the EU, and now the EU is going to establish a 'closer relationship' with Turkey. Money will be poured in and Visa restrictions lifted for Turkish people who want to 'visit' Europe. So all the Turks will move out, to Europe, and Turkey will become one vast refugee centre, paid for by Europe. That is until ISIS get in there, and that's when it will become a big catastrophic problem

, of even bigger proportions than it is now. What a nightmare. 

[******lynda******]

You might say we are lucky to be born into an area with an established infrastructure, but it did not occur on its own. People created it...built it, paid for it.

[cee-dee]

You missed out WORKED for it?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@******lynda****** wrote:
You might say we are lucky to be born into an area with an established infrastructure, but it did not occur on its own. People created it...built it, paid for it.

---

The UK has now evolved into a nation of complainers - potholes in roads, the council needs to sort it - not enough houses, it's the governments fault - hosepipe bans, poor schools, not enough hospitals etc. etc. etc.

Any idea that when there is a need for something people go out and sort it is nonsense - always has been.  Our current infrastructure has not come about because of the hard work of the British people - indeed it was built by their hard work, (and often 'misery'), but without that being organised by the few, some for profit, some for philanthropic reasons, some for more nefarious reasons, we would still be living in grass huts.

We work to buy the things like houses, food, transport, energy etc.  We happen to live in a part of the world where those things are available to purchase.  Those living in many parts of the world work just as hard, in physical terms probably far harder, but many of the basic things we take for granted aren't available to them no matter how hard they work.

That is pure luck.

[cee-dee]

Complainers there may be, but things that are needed to be done eventually get done.

There's currently an appeal being repeated ad infinitum during advert breaks showing a little girl collecting water and showing the dirty water hole from which she collects it. An animal is shown wading in the water and urinating in it.

Now then, a sensible group of people would surely make some effort to improve that situation by making some sort of attempt to widen the "lower area" of the pool for animals but keeping them away from the higher spot where the spring surfaces where the water is likely to be relatively clean?

[margaret*e]

I sometimes think those ads are self defeating, and showing them so often makes people inclined to close their ears and eyes to so many appeals.

[cee-dee]

You're right, I usually mute the sound. They have such mournful voices too.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Complainers there may be, but things that are needed to be done eventually get done.

There's currently an appeal being repeated ad infinitum during advert breaks showing a little girl collecting water and showing the dirty water hole from which she collects it. An animal is shown wading in the water and urinating in it.

Now then, a sensible group of people would surely make some effort to improve that situation by making some sort of attempt to widen the "lower area" of the pool for animals but keeping them away from the higher spot where the spring surfaces where the water is likely to be relatively clean?

---

And if the land belonged to the farmer or village who owned the animals and didn't allow those changes to be made because it would make life more difficult for them then what do you suggest?

The only reason we enjoy the water supplies we do is that local and national governments granted access to land to enable streets to be dug up and pipes laid whether the landowner agreed or not, gave land to early 'developers' for reservoirs and so on.  Remove those rights and how long before our whole infrastructure would fail. 

So you lose the water supply to your house - what would you do? - how could you as an individual go about changing things so that your water supply was restored? - possibly sink a well, but could you do that without the finances, expertise or tools - that is the situation those in the advert you describe find themselves in.

[cee-dee]

Leaving aside the negativity... If the landowner would object to that, surely they'd object to people collecting water there?

In this country, there have been wells dug for centuries. In later times, all country properties had their own well and there were "Village wells" too. In towns, depending on the size, there were several.

Nowadays, if society broke down, life would be very difficult for most people.

As for those in the appealing advert, they've made absolutely no effort to improve things for themselves.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Leaving aside the negativity... If the landowner would object to that, surely they'd object to people collecting water there?

In this country, there have been wells dug for centuries. In later times, all country properties had their own well and there were "Village wells" too. In towns, depending on the size, there were several.

Nowadays, if society broke down, life would be very difficult for most people.

As for those in the appealing advert, they've made absolutely no effort to improve things for themselves.

---

That is a ridiculous statement! -you have no way of knowing what they may or may not have tried!

As for the farmer allowing villagers to collect water that has ne bearing on allowing change - your solution would involve the farmer in expense and labour keeping their animals from upper reaches of the stream let alone also preventing wild animals from fouling the water.

I note you didn't really address the point about getting water if the supply to your house broke down other than to say it would be very difficult - and that's with all the advantages we have in the West - yet you claim it is simple for those who don't have the same resources.

[cee-dee]

What's happened? You used to "debate" logically but just lately you've resorted to....... less than "nice" comments.

There was no need to say "that is a ridiculous statement". You've not thought it through.

In the video, there is absolutely no sign of them having made any attempt to keep the water clean(er).

Where you have a spring, you scrape back the ground to the point where the water emerges and protect that area from animals. As the water flows, it only needs to flow a little way, (a few yards will do) to a place where you clear the stones, then use them to make a little dam to encourage the animals to drink there.

As to getting a water supply if society broke down, that might be the least of my worries............

There's plenty of water round here, it'd be a matter of fetching it..........

[upthecreekyetagain]

OK - I'm getting grumpy and I apologise if my remark was offensive - I was attacking the statement not the person who made it.

"they've made absolutely no effort to improve things for themselves" is a statement worthy of ridicule unless you can convince anyone reading it that you have evidence to support it - I am at a loss to see how you could though unless you know the individuals concerned or even the specific location.

We can agree the water is dirty, (as are most 'water holes'), but there is also no indication of the source of water.  This may be from above ground springs, underwater springs, (groundwater), dried river bed or rainwater.  You have assumed that the water flows and comes from an above ground spring yet there is no indication of this in the appeal video, quite the contrary.

The video does show what can be done with a few resources to tap into the groundwater and provide clean water.  Some years ago my daughter was involved in a project with the Venture Scouts which raised a few thousand pounds and went out to Kenya.  With that money they bought materials and hired equipment which enabled four villages to build large water storage tanks and rain collection systems as well as to drill a well in each village.  The amount of money was relatively small in Western standards but was way beyond the reach of any of the communities helped.  The point was though that the villagers didn't just stand back and watch the tanks and wells being built - each and every one of them, men women and children pitched in and laboured until the job was done.

There is no suggestion that these people won't do whatever they can to help themselves - simply they don't have the resources to do so - in much the same way that if your water supply fails you as an individual can do very little to rectify the problem - you rely on those with the knowledge and resources to do it for you.

[start-the-fire]

I wont contribute to such causes or to similar, charity begins at home as they say, there are just as important causes here i would donate to first.

As  in this country i would love to have had more children, but financially this would put a strain on my limited resources. I don't know why in this country and others, people insist in having children when they have  are not the means or resources to support them.

Yes we could go on about contraception and the higher infant mortality rate in some countries etc but i don't see this as a reason.

Also we would be well to look at the systematic corruption of aid given to some countries which has been rife over the past decades,

There is a good argument why infact aid is actually bad for the receptive country-

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083

I wish there were better ways to help these African nations, and foreign investment has helped, though as in the middle east many areas are unstable, and are unpredictable. 

Europe is not big enough to accomodate constant net migration.

[upthecreekyetagain]

It's interesting that Dambisa Moyo, (the author of the article linked to), has made clear that she is not being critical of the sort of aid provided by groups such as WaterAid but rather that of government to government 'aid' and loans that result in the African nations repaying $20 billion a year to the West!

"FC: What have the NGOs said?
Moyo: I'm a bit annoyed because I think they have been quite mean, misrepresenting some of the things I say. I keep saying there are three types of aid: humanitarian aid, charity aid—I'm not talking about those in the book—and government aid. "

http://www.fastcompany.com/1254598/bono-beware-dambisa-moyo-aid-microfinance-and-problem-celebs-afri...

Unless the resources are provided to enable the developing countries to support their population then migration to the West will continue until an equilibrium is attained.  Making the West a better and better place to live whilst at the same time starving those in need of assistance is no way to stem migration.

[start-the-fire]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

It's interesting that Dambisa Moyo, (the author of the article linked to), has made clear that she is not being critical of the sort of aid provided by groups such as WaterAid but rather that of government to government 'aid' and loans that result in the African nations repaying $20 billion a year to the West!

"FC: What have the NGOs said?
Moyo: I'm a bit annoyed because I think they have been quite mean, misrepresenting some of the things I say. I keep saying there are three types of aid: humanitarian aid, charity aid—I'm not talking about those in the book—and government aid. "

http://www.fastcompany.com/1254598/bono-beware-dambisa-moyo-aid-microfinance-and-problem-celebs-afri...

Unless the resources are provided to enable the developing countries to support their population then migration to the West will continue until an equilibrium is attained.  Making the West a better and better place to live whilst at the same time starving those in need of assistance is no way to stem migration.

---

The population in africa is still one of the fastest growing in the world, for reasons i understand , but find hard to comprehend.

Would you try and bring up a family where such hardship remains. Yet 8 African countries are in the top 10 expanding populations.

I agree that investment loans and the systematic plundering of africas resources should be taken to hand, as well as thefts in their own system, but at the same time we cannot deny that legitimate grants and aid never reach those intended.

http://gga.org/stories/editions/aif-10-aid-the-bottomless-pit/stolen-aid-slays-development

Im not sure what your idea of equalibrium is?

Migration is not the solution, education certainly would help, along with a proper management of their economy, and re investment in their own countries as at the moment 40% of their wealth is invested abroad. Dictatorships are a major problem to development.

Also-

In July 2005, Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission revealed that a succession of military dictators stole or squandered $500 billion – equivalent to all Western aid to Africa over the past four decades.

Though i loath putting links to the mail though greatly exagerated we get the drift.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835947/The-Great-British-rake-really-happens-billions-donat...

[upthecreekyetagain]

You have highlighted two totally different aspects of aid and charity - I have little doubt that much of the aid to developing countries provided by the West via NGOs is lost through waste and corruption.  How big a problem though is by its very nature is difficult to assess.  In the example quoted in your first link it claims that $7 million had been misappropriated from the total grant of $474 million made by the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS - certainly a lot of money yet still less than 2% - I'd be very surprised if the overall figure for all national aid were as low as this!

The second problem you highlight is the amount of the funds raised by charities that actually ends up being spent on those the charity is set up to help.

The article you linked to unfairly criticises Oxfam in my opinion.  They have lumped together all the income the charity receives and compared that to the amount that is finally used to achieve its aims.  This is totally unreasonable.

If we take an imaginary charity that has a number of income sources.  Let's say they receive £1,000 from donations and their collection, advertising and admin costs were £100 then that would mean 90% was spent on their aims, good by any standard.  Now suppose they decided to sell goods to raise funds, maybe T-shirts, calendars and cards.  They sell £1,000 in goods but production and other costs account for £900 leaving £100 to add to the previous £900 available for the aims of the charity.  The causes sponsored by the charity benefit by these activities but the overall figures for the charity look decidedly less attractive - £2,000 raised, £1,000 in costs leaving just £1,000 to be spent or 50% of the total raised. 

That is the way the article has treated Oxfam's income.

[Anonymous]

Hello

It always amazes me  when people make statements like this one even thought the same people have not ever gone to any of these Countries to see for themselves

So it is so easy to assume rather than if I may add & make such swift statements